Will the Ravens ever win the Superbowl with Lamar Jackson?

[AngusMcFife]

54 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

That's fine. Lamar had what, 8 more TDs than the RB?

I'm sure Lamar would trade the MVP to be where McCaffrey is right now. So I don't feel bad for Christian. Or Purdy. If they want to give it to Lamar it's fine. It's a QB award for the most part. If they want to penalize Purdy for the team around him, that's fine. If they want to penalize Dak for not being as good as people thought he should be in 2022, or whatever reason he wasn't a real option, that's fine. Ignore Josh QAllen's 44 TD and nearly 5k yards, that's fine. Jordan Love had over 4k yards passing and 36 total TDs.

Stroud and Mayfield had big years taking preseason bottom 3 teams to the playoffs and winning one.

Mahomes is pretty good too.

No one QB was head and shoulders above the rest.

McCaffrey's closest non QB competition is Lamb or Hill and he had a couple hundred more yards than either and 7 and 8 more TDs. He won the rushing title by 300 yards. Mostert also had 21 TDs but almost 1000 fewer total yards. I think he has a very good case for MVP.

I kinda hope Lamar wins by unanimous decision just to show how silly the award is this year. It's been a silly award several years though, this isn't the first. It just hurts the integrity of the award a little more.

Salty!

You seem mystified that knowledgeable football people don't value bulk stats as much as you do.

[Thomas5737]

1 hour ago, AngusMcFife said:

Salty!

You seem mystified that knowledgeable football people don't value bulk stats as much as you do.

For the HOF? I think many do. Stats = production. Not perfect but better than trusting people's random opinions or eye tests, much easier to be deceived.

[AngusMcFife]

7 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

For the HOF? I think many do. Stats = production. Not perfect but better than trusting people's random opinions or eye tests, much easier to be deceived.

I was quoting your rant about Lamar winning the 2023 MVP, not HOF. Although I will note that Gale Sayers is 160th in rushing yards all time. It's certainly possible to have a player in the HOF with low bulk stats if they shine brightly in their time in the league.

[diamondbull424]

10 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

That's fine. Lamar had what, 8 more TDs than the RB?

I'm sure Lamar would trade the MVP to be where McCaffrey is right now. So I don't feel bad for Christian. Or Purdy. If they want to give it to Lamar it's fine. It's a QB award for the most part. If they want to penalize Purdy for the team around him, that's fine. If they want to penalize Dak for not being as good as people thought he should be in 2022, or whatever reason he wasn't a real option, that's fine. Ignore Josh QAllen's 44 TD and nearly 5k yards, that's fine. Jordan Love had over 4k yards passing and 36 total TDs.

Stroud and Mayfield had big years taking preseason bottom 3 teams to the playoffs and winning one.

Mahomes is pretty good too.

No one QB was head and shoulders above the rest.

McCaffrey's closest non QB competition is Lamb or Hill and he had a couple hundred more yards than either and 7 and 8 more TDs. He won the rushing title by 300 yards. Mostert also had 21 TDs but almost 1000 fewer total yards. I think he has a very good case for MVP.

I kinda hope Lamar wins by unanimous decision just to show how silly the award is this year. It's been a silly award several years though, this isn't the first. It just hurts the integrity of the award a little more.

Yet we’re talking historical precedent if you’re chirping about Lamar’s case being somehow unworthy. He at least has precedent for his claim.

No RB has ever won the MVP award in the last 25 years without either a) breaking the YFS record, b) breaking the TD record, and/or c) finishing with elite efficiency (over 6.0 YPC) with elite volume (2k yds rushing).

CMC finished 11th in total TDs, 69th in YFS, and 115th in rushing yards. Literally zero argument, historically speaking, for winning the MVP award as a RB.

I would further decimate your argument, but as you’ve stated, you’ve got a word count bandwith limit that restricts your comprehension.

Edited February 7 by diamondbull424

[Thomas5737]

23 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

Yet we’re talking historical precedent if you’re chirping about Lamar’s case being somehow unworthy. He at least has precedent for his claim.

No RB has ever won the MVP award in the last 25 years without either a) breaking the YFS record, b) breaking the TD record, and/or c) finishing with elite efficiency (over 6.0 YPC) with elite volume (2k yds rushing).

No QB in the last 25 years won the MVP without finishing top 10 in passing touchdowns. Look, now there is no precedent for Lamar.

[diamondbull424]

9 hours ago, AngusMcFife said:

Salty!

You seem mystified that knowledgeable football people don't value bulk stats as much as you do.

The problem is bigger than that. To whine about the legitimacy of Lamar’s MVP case because of stats, while simultaneously guzzling down CMC’s dual threat case for MVP that isn’t even historically relevant in the MVP conversation is absolutely goofy.

If he is going to be “stat guy” then be stat guy. If the eye test doesn’t matter, if the actual value to the team doesn’t matter, and we’re devolving the case to Lamar being a terrible bulk stat guy… then WTF is he doing arguing CMC for MVP, it’s goofy and laughable.

No disrespect to CMC either. Great player, but if one hates Lamar’s stat case, it’s absolutely delusional to believe CMC somehow has a superior stats case as an MVP candidate. It absolutely eliminates the credibility of his own argument.

[diamondbull424]

7 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

No QB in the last 25 years won the MVP without finishing top 10 in passing touchdowns. Look, now there is no precedent for Lamar.

Yet there HAVE been QBs who won the award who finished with 24 passing TDs and/or 28+ total TDs from the QB position on 3 different occasions. Which is what Lamar hit.

Therefore he has actual precedent for winning the award based on bulk stats alone. What precedent can you find me for CMC winning based on any relevant factors? I’ll wait.

EDIT: And this is with Lamar not even being the bulk stats candidate for MVP. That would be Josh Allen this season.

Lamar’s argument is a combination between having enough bulk stats to qualify, passing the eye test as the best player on one of the best teams, and legitimately being more valuable to his team than any other candidate outside of Mahomes and Allen.

Lamar’s case isn’t bulk stats. But even with his weakest argument, he shows up with historical precedent. CMC’s best argument as the “greatest overall season” doesn’t sniff the historical precedent needed to win the award, which is the point.

Edited February 7 by diamondbull424

[Thomas5737]

7 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

What precedent can you find me for CMC winning based on any relevant factors? I’ll wait.

He led the league in rushing yards, total yards and touchdowns? RBs who have won the award have surely have done that.

11 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

Lamar’s case isn’t bulk stats. But even with his weakest argument, he shows up with historical precedent.

Sure when you select specific overall stats and not compare to other players in their season. No QB has won when they didn't finish top 10 in passing yards or passing touchdowns.

So QB who wasn't top 10 in either vs RB who finished 1st in both.

 

[diamondbull424]

14 hours ago, Soko said:

Personally, I’m not sure I’d weigh in differently in terms of what he’s done, but I do weigh it differently in terms of value or ideal production.

My thinking is that, come crunch time or even in second halves when you’re down by two scores, you need a QB who can pass the ball. Obviously Lamar can sling it (and his escapability is amazing), but if you’re confining him to passing only, I think there’s a noticeable difference in his ability vs Mahomes’, or Allen’s, or Burrow’s. Some might say that that’s an oddly specific scenario, and that Lamar presents so much additional value in the run game (both as a runner and a decoy/just another player you have to account for) that it weighs out overall, and that’s fair too. I just believe that in any given postseason run, you’re going to find yourself in positions where the legs aren’t going to help you the same way an arm does, and that’s where Lamar gets shorted by some people. 

So no, I’m not going to say Lamar got 200 rushing and 100 passing, and that’s worse than 300 passing. But I will say that I’d rather have the guy who is an elite passer, elite escape artist, and meh runner than the guy who is a good passer, elite escape artist, and elite runner. 

 

14 hours ago, Soggust said:

That's.....a really strong take imo and I think I might be a bit swayed here tbh.

Again, broad strokes maybe it's still "who cares" but perhaps applying a slight bias/weight does make sense given that logic.

The only counterargument I can think of is  - Would rushing yards also similarly benefit the down by two scores situation because the defense can't necessarily pin their ears back and drop 8? Because they have to keep a spy and play contain and mind the scramble?

So extreme to extreme, Marino might be a better passer down by 2 TDs but the defense has to play Lamar a lot more honest?

The other counter argument IMO is that rushing yards are going to typically come slower than passing yards. They’re less explosive overall and thus eat up more clock, which leads to typically having a higher TOP for the offense.

Which should afford the opposition less opportunities to exploit your defense. 

So while the 300 yd passer might be better equipped for exclusive passing situations, he is more likely to find himself in need of those passing situations to win considering he affords more opportunities to the opposing offense than his “200 rushing yard” counterpart; Considering he’s not likely limiting the oppositions opportunities to the same degree as the running QB who runs for 6 YPC over his 200 yds vs passing for 7-8 yards per pass on all 300 yds.

The 300 yd passer is more efficient per offensive second used, but the 200 yds running quarterback is more efficient per defensive second not used. And thus it amplifies the value of/and places greater demands of both QBs/offenses being more efficient from a TDs/drive perspective. Which in turn could lead to greater pressure on the offense that doesn’t typically see such a restricted number of opportunities and thus creates more turnovers/drive instead.

I don’t think current analytics I’ve seen have truly yet understood how to contextualize that impact and value of the “anti-play.” Current analytics seems to look at the offensive value added per play/second, but not the value removed from the opposition.

So point is, I’d be more likely to assume the 200 rushing yds and 100 passing yds QB won the game over the guy that threw for the 300 yards passing alone.

[diamondbull424]

1 hour ago, Thomas5737 said:

He led the league in rushing yards, total yards and touchdowns? RBs who have won the award have surely have done that.

This isn’t historically relevant. There have been a host of RBs to lead the league in rushing yards, YFS, and touchdowns… and failed to win the MVP.

This isn’t a historical marker used for the position to achieving winning the award.

1 hour ago, Thomas5737 said:

Sure when you select specific overall stats and not compare to other players in their season. No QB has won when they didn't finish top 10 in passing yards or passing touchdowns.

So QB who wasn't top 10 in either vs RB who finished 1st in both.

Ah so you’re claiming that I’m essentially cherry picking? You mean sort of like removing rushing yards and TDs from the equation? Lamar finished as the 3rd most explosive QB in the league in total yards per game (281.2 yds/game) to only Josh Allen (284.1 yds/game) and Patrick Mahomes (285.75 yds/game).

There is no stat equivalent to YFS/game for the QB position yet. So we’ll just call this “total yards created” or “TYC” for short.

In addition to finishing 3rd in TYC/game, he finished 4th in passer rating (3rd if we don’t qualify Kirk Cousins playing only 8 games) as well as finishing 1st in rushing yards/carry in the NFL. Which means he matched elite 2023 seasonal volume with elite 2023 seasonal efficiency.

In addition his rushing yards rank him with the 7th most single season by a QB in NFL history.

So come again about who here is truly cherry picking stats? Your duplicitous hate for Lamar’s MVP case has been weighed, it’s been measured, and it’s been found wanting…

 

Edited February 7 by diamondbull424

[Soggust]

23 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

 

The other counter argument IMO is that rushing yards are going to typically come slower than passing yards. They’re less explosive overall and thus eat up more clock, which leads to typically having a higher TOP for the offense.

Which should afford the opposition less opportunities to exploit your defense. 

So while the 300 yd passer might be better equipped for exclusive passing situations, he is more likely to find himself in need of those passing situations to win considering he affords more opportunities to the opposing offense than his “200 rushing yard” counterpart; Considering he’s not likely limiting the oppositions opportunities to the same degree as the running QB who runs for 6 YPC over his 200 yds vs passing for 7-8 yards per pass on all 300 yds.

The 300 yd passer is more efficient per offensive second used, but the 200 yds running quarterback is more efficient per defensive second not used. And thus it amplifies the value of/and places greater demands of both QBs/offenses being more efficient from a TDs/drive perspective. Which in turn could lead to greater pressure on the offense that doesn’t typically see such a restricted number of opportunities and thus creates more turnovers/drive instead.

I don’t think current analytics I’ve seen have truly yet understood how to contextualize that impact and value of the “anti-play.” Current analytics seems to look at the offensive value added per play/second, but not the value removed from the opposition.

I like this train of thought, although I wonder if it might be partially mitigated by the fact that often rushing yards are less explosive because we are usually comparing RBs?

Meaning, Lamar's 6.0 career YPC (also not sure if this is further affected by sacks?) seems very explosive for rushing yards, whereas often we are comparing rushing yards (TOP-wise), we are thinking RBs averaging 4.0 YPC. 

Either way, it feels like we are deep enough into the minutiae that I think I would be inclined to weight them equally, personally. 

 

28 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

So point is, I’d be more likely to assume the 200 rushing yds and 100 passing yds QB won the game over the guy that threw for the 300 yards passing alone.

The only part I'm not sure I agree with. I'm not saying the passing yards would be more likely to win, I just think they are relatively equal.

We've seen rushing yards continually fail to win (Justin Fields) as well as passing yards fail to win (Sam Howell), as well as examples of both succeeding so it seems like a hard conclusion to make in either direction, imo.

[Thomas5737]

3 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

1 hour ago, Thomas5737 said:

He led the league in rushing yards, total yards and touchdowns? RBs who have won the award have surely have done that.

This isn’t historically relevant. There have been a host of RBs to lead the league in rushing yards, YFS, and touchdowns… and failed to win the MVP.

This isn’t a historical marker used for the position to achieving winning the award.

1 hour ago, Thomas5737 said:

Sure when you select specific overall stats and not compare to other players in their season. No QB has won when they didn't finish top 10 in passing yards or passing touchdowns.

So QB who wasn't top 10 in either vs RB who finished 1st in both.

Ah so you’re claiming that I’m essentially cherry picking? You mean sort of like removing rushing yards and TDs from the equation? Lamar finished as the 3rd most explosive QB in the league in total yards per game (281.2 yds/game) to only Josh Allen (284.1 yds/game) and Patrick Mahomes (285.75 yds/game).

There is no stat equivalent to YFS/game for the QB position yet. So we’ll just call this “total yards created” or “TYC” for short.

In addition to finishing 3rd in TYC, he finished 4th in passer rating (3rd if we don’t qualify Kirk Cousins playing only 8 games) as well as finishing 1st in rushing yards/carry in the NFL. Which means he matched elite 2023 seasonal volume with elite 2023 seasonal efficiency.

In addition his rushing yards rank him with the 7th most single season by a QB in NFL history.

So come again about who here is truly cherry picking stats? Your duplicitous hate for Lamar’s MVP case has been weighed, it’s been measured, and it’s been found wanting…

Okay lol I guess we are done here. 

[diamondbull424]

1 minute ago, Soggust said:

I like this train of thought, although I wonder if it might be partially mitigated by the fact that often rushing yards are less explosive because we are usually comparing RBs?

Meaning, Lamar's 6.0 career YPC (also not sure if this is further affected by sacks?) seems very explosive for rushing yards, whereas often we are comparing rushing yards (TOP-wise), we are thinking RBs averaging 4.0 YPC. 

Either way, it feels like we are deep enough into the minutiae that I think I would be inclined to weight them equally, personally. 

 

The only part I'm not sure I agree with. I'm not saying the passing yards would be more likely to win, I just think they are relatively equal.

We've seen rushing yards continually fail to win (Justin Fields) as well as passing yards fail to win (Sam Howell), as well as examples of both succeeding so it seems like a hard conclusion to make in either direction, imo.

I don’t disagree with both passing and rushing QBs failing, but when we see rushing yards fail, I think we have to contextualize to the extent it fails. For example, is it at 75 yds, 100 yds, 125 yds?

At 200 yds I’d have to assume his team never needed to jump into a game script that called upon that QB to make tons of passes, meaning he likely was very rarely down in the game. Whats more, we can assume for the team to continue running he likely must have been both efficient at running, while also perhaps ahead in the game to run for that many yards.

While conversely 300 passing yards is a generic total that tons of QBs reach during the course of a season. Even a “running QB” like Lamar and other running/scrambling QBs hit that figure with at least some regularity. So I can’t make a determination about the game based on 300 yds other than it was likely a typical game script where the player needed to pass the ball to stay in the game, but he also didn’t get a crap ton of opportunities to the point where he obliterated the opposing team in passing yards.

For example if that same player passed for 500 passing yds we can assume he had such a historic performance likely due to a combination of elite efficiency per pass play, that his defense fed him additional opportunities, and that this QB likely took advantage of these yards to account for at least some number of scores for his offense (otherwise you’d think he would’ve been benched by his coach for a lack of scoring efficiency). So I can assume with some level of confidence that he probably won the game. Same as I can assume that a 100 passing yd and 200 rushing yard game by a QB is such an outlier that he too likely won the game.

 

But I digress. Fields has been a better winner than Howell with a QB record of 5-8 vs 4-13, this with both players averaging eerily the same 247.6 total yards created/game (it’s pretty crazy that you picked two QBs that both were on pace for 4209 yards through 17 games).

So I think even with the yards being the same we can see that Fields has a stronger overall impact to his team winning. Now we can look at the Commanders 31st overall DVOA defense and the Bears overall 17th DVOA defense and point to the Bears defense being the difference and not Fields in the team winning. But then in a sort of chicken or the egg concept, how much is Fields rushing yards playing “keep away” from the opposing offense is benefiting his overall team and its defense?

I’m not a genius, but I suspect some genius down the road will come up with a great answer for us.

[Soggust]

14 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

For example if that same player passed for 500 passing yds we can assume he had such a historic performance likely due to a combination of elite efficiency per pass play, that his defense fed him additional opportunities, and that this QB likely took advantage of these yards to account for at least some number of scores for his offense (otherwise you’d think he would’ve been benched by his coach for a lack of scoring efficiency). So I can assume with some level of confidence that he probably won the game. 

You would think, however QBs that threw for 500 yards in a game are actually 14-12 all-time which, although winning, doesn't seem to be a sure thing at all.

 

17 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

But I digress. Fields has been a better winner than Howell with a QB record of 5-8 vs 4-13, this with both players averaging eerily the same 247.6 total yards created/game (it’s pretty crazy that you picked two QBs that both were on pace for 4209 yards through 17 games).

This year, perhaps.

But career-wise, Sam Howell is winning 27.7% of his games (5-13), but Justin Fields is winning 27.5% of his career games (11-29). Fields winning % today is obviously also much better because of his increased efficiency passing, but again we are in the chicken and egg scenario. 

----

Again, I see an interesting case for rushing yards being slightly more valuable and I still like the opposing case of passing yards being slightly more valuable. Solid takes both ways.

As for me, I try not to be a projector guy myself, so when we get to this level of granularity, I just value them equally.

Even if I'm wrong and we find out, let's say, that rushing yards are worth 5-10% more than passing yards for QBs, does it really change the convo that much? Most Lamar haters are dug in regardless of a 5-10% bias in one factor of the comparison imo. 

[Soko]

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

So point is, I’d be more likely to assume the 200 rushing yds and 100 passing yds QB won the game over the guy that threw for the 300 yards passing alone.

In 2023, passing offense was more correlative to TOP/drive than rushing offense was. Teams with higher TOP/drive also didn’t correlate very highly with teams running lots of total offensive plays or plays/drive, which indicates to me that when moving the ball and keeping drives alive, it’s more important that you get it done than it is how you get it done. So I don’t find your point to have merit.

Passing offense was also more correlative to scoring%, FWIW.